Mahisagar Bhatha Co-operative Agriculture Co-operative Society LTD. , Borsad vs Thakore Shree Jagdevsinhi Ramsinhji

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1992 Supreme(SC) 584

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh : N.M.Kasliwal
Mahisagar Bhatha Co-operative Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited, Borsad
Versus
Thakore Shree Jagdevsinhi Ramsinhji
Case No. : 1150-51 of 1979
Date of Decision : 9/2/92
Advocates Appeared: Chhabra Rani : Dave A.Dushyant : Desai Ashok : Jad Bimal Roy : Nariman R.F. : Parekh P.H. : Qureshi Hameed : Sachthey Anip : Sagar U.

Advocates:
A.Dushyant Dave, Anip Sachthey, ASHOK DESAI, BIMAL ROY JAD, HAMID QURESHI, P.H.Parekh, R.F.NARIMAN, RANI CHHABRA, U.Sagar

Headnote:
Talukdari Abolition Act - Section 6 - Possession in respect of land – Claim of compensation - Trial Court – Court have heard learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. It was contended on behalf of the defendant/appellants that the land came to be vested in the State of Gujarat under the provisions of Section 6 of Abolition Act - Court do not find any force in this contention merger agreement dated has been placed on record which clearly mentioned that the plaintiff as State was entitled to the full ownership use and enjoyment of all the private properties - An inventory of such private properties which formed part of such merger agreement clearly mentioned five villages in of district – Held, It was then contended by learned counsel appearing for the Society that it is a cooperative society having small farmers who are called marginal farmers - These landless farmers had formed a co-operative society and the Gujarat government as a matter of policy was to give land to such cooperative societies of landless marginal farmers - An application for allotment was made for the land in question - Government by order agreed to lease out the land to the Society under Rule 40 of the Land Revenue Rules - Lease deed was executed on/or about and after getting subsidy and loan, the poor farmers improved the land and made it cultivable - Land while in possession of the plaintiff was uncultivable and by dint of large number of landless and poor farmers pipelines were laid were constructed and some portion of the land was made cultivable in and full cultivation was achieved by - It was thus submitted on behalf of the Society that for nearly poor farmers and their families are residing and cultivating the land in question and it would not be in the interest of justice to dispossess them from land in question - It was also submitted that the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 applies to the land in question and the plaintiff (and his successors and legal representatives are bound to surrender the land in excess of the ceiling area. It was thus submitted that instead of dispossessing the farmers who are in possession of the land in question, the State government may be directed to allot some other land to the plaintiff in lieu of the land in question - Court have given our careful consideration to the human problem arising in this case. The State government had allotted the land in question in year 1964 and a large number of landless marginal farmers have improved the land for cultivation by their own and it would cause great harm and injustice to dispossess and dislodge these large number of families of poor farmers from the land in question - On the other hand plaintiff has succeeded in proving his ownership and right of possession over land admeasuring 100 acres - It is, however not disputed that provisions of Land Ceiling Act shall apply and the legal representatives of plaintiff are bound to surrender area in excess of the ceiling permitted under Act - Thus taking in view entire facts and circumstances of case Court deem it proper in interest of justice to mould relief in the following manner -

Judgment

N.M.KASLIWAL,J.

(1) BOTH these appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the common judgment of the High court of Gujarat dated 6/04/1978. This litigation has a long chequered history but we would succinctly narrate such facts which are necessary for the disposal of these appeals. Thakore Shree Jagdevsinhi since dead and now represented through his heirs and legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) was the ruler of Umeta State and he was also a registered Talukdar and owner of five villages, including village Kothiyakhad in the State of Gujarat. This village Kothiyakhad is situated on the bank of River Mahi. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner of suit land A Kothiyakhad Bhatha bearing survey No. 247 admeasuring 100 acres and 38 gunthas and of landed property plot B referred to as SHREE JAGDEVSINHI RAMSINHJI (Kasliwal, J.) Mahmedpura land and for recovery of possession and for rendition of accounts of income from 1/11/1952 till the date of handing over possession. The plaintiff had claimed the suit properties as his personal properties as a Talukdar and in the alternative it was alleged that the suit lands were Bhatha lands beyond the purview of the Bombay Talukdar Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as Talukdari Abolition Act) which came into operation w.e.f. 15/08/1950. The alternative case was put up by the plaintiff to meet the allegation of the State government that the suit property lot A had vested in the State by virtue of Section 6 of the Talukdari Abolition Act. The plaintiff s case in this regard was that the princely State of Umeta had merged in the Union of India and at that time by a merger agreement dated 24/05/1948 five villages were allowed as private properties of the plaintiff and the suit lands situated in one of such village Kothiyakhad remained unaffected by the provisions of the Talukdari Abolition Act.

(2) THE trial court by judgment dated 30/03/1971 declared that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land survey No. 247 admeasuring 100 acres, 38 gunthas and also granted a decree for delivering the possession of this land and also held that the plaintiff was entitled to accounts for this land. The suit as regards Mahmedpura Bhatha land B was dismissed. It may be mentioned that the State of Gujarat allotted the suit lands to Mahisagar Bhatha Cooperative Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Gambhira (hereinafter referred to as the Society) during the pendency of this litigation and as such the Society was also impleaded as defendant in the suit. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court. First Appeal No. 787 of 1971 was filed by the State of Gujarat, First Appeal No. 799 of 1971 by the Society and First Appeal No. 834 of 1971 by the plaintiff. The High court disposed of all the three appeals by a common judgment dated 6/04/1978. The High court dismissed the First Appeal Nos. 787 of 1971 and 799 of 1971 except setting aside the decree for taking accounts. Subject to the above variation, the decree passed by the trial court for declaring ownership and possession in respect of land survey No. 247, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge was confirmed. In Appeal No. 834 of 1971 filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his claim for Mahmedpura Bhatha land, the High court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court.

(3) THE State of Gujarat and the Society have now come in appeal to this court but no appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, as such we are only concerned with the Kothiyakhad Bhatha land of survey No. 247.

(4) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. It was contended on behalf of the defendant/appellants that the land came to be vested in the State of Gujarat under the provisions of Section 6 of the Talukdari Abolition Act. We do not find any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document